His PNG stunt consists of a letter of arrangement, there is no formal agreement. Also there has to be a Bill passed by Parliament and, no doubt, there would be a High Court challenge as there was against the equally ridiculous Malaysian people swap and resettlement arrangement planning.

This is another clear the decks of problem issues to win as many votes as possible. Another Kev4Kev thought bubble that would, like all the others in the past, be handed to cabinet ministers to sort out the details and try and make it work, pink bat insulation, BER etc style if by a miracle Australia was lumbered with another 3 years of dysfunction, chaos and deceit.

I’m utterly amazed at the sycophantic Rudd fawning media who didn’t ask the single most obvious question of all when Rudd announced this PNG deal.

Just what (interpret the what here as meaning how much money) has he promised to give them in return for what he has done here.

Are we as Australians so damned stupid that he thinks we don’t know what he’s done here.

And hey, hasn’t this new Kevin Rudd changed, as we have been told ad infinitum.

Nup! Same old same old.

I have this wonderful image of him. Back not long after he first came to power, a local womens clothing store at Runaway Bay on the Gold Coast had this huge sale and they used this image to advertise it. I saw the posters one time, and less than a week later, they were taken down. When I went in and asked for a copy of the Poster, I was told that they were directed to remove said posters and destroy them. Quickly I went to their website and copied the image, Luckily, as it also was removed a few days later. I saved the image, and then just deleted the Company name. It shows what I think is the real Kevin Rudd.

The compliant left leaning MSM always accept Green Labor proposals at face value, never put their brains into gear. The media spin merchants, no wonder newspaper sales are in decline and free to air television losing audiences.

His twin imperatives are to read the polls (especially the ALP polls in the marginals) and avoid the caretaker mode for as long as possible. I suggest this means a late election date so he can attend G20 in Russia as an active PM, gaining big fat headlines back here as a real “whirlygig doer”

As an outsider I’m amazed at the traction Rudd has got in the polls.
I’m also amazed he hasn’t gone for an early date –the longer he leaves it the greater the chance for the opposition to overcome the jump he has got in the polls which always happens when you have this sort of leadership change

The published polls have often failed to capture the mood of electorates at all levels of government, and in recent years of state elections. The most consistently accurate predictions of outcomes are produced by psephologists such as Malcolm Mackerras who based on voting trends predicts that the next government will be the Coalition, no matter who was prime minister at present. His last confirmation was late in June 2013

Don’t be sorry. There is a lot of diversity over at YouTube. A lot of the vids are not a waste of time. Even better, some there seem to know how to get rid of infections like CrapPeddlerHaPorth. This is a useful skill everyone should know.

If Rudd wants to go after September 21 he will have to have a sitting of Parliament before the elections (scheduled to start August 20). If he has a sitting of Parliament he will be forced to try to get one or more of his bloodrushes (like the ETS/tax) through a Parliament which he can’t control- result- no confidence.

He wants to be PM as long as possible before the election, he wants to be PM for the G20 Summit in September in Leningrad, and he wants to go to the election as PM with the confidence of the House ringing in the public’s ears.

September 14 would satisfy his needs, but he won’t go on Gillard’s date, just out of spite, and because he promised the Jews he wouldn’t go on Yom Kippur. It gives him a fortnight of campaigning basking in the glory of his rhetorical triumphs at the G20 summit.

.
The idea that an election date after September 21 necessitates a further sitting of Parliament (in August), is a furphy. Sitting dates for Parliament are set by the government of the day and can be altered or amended or cancelled by the government of the day.

The only constitutional requirements are that each House of Parliament sit at least once every twelve months. On that basis alone the House of Representatives need not sit again until June 25 2014. Overriding that however is the requirement for Parliament to sit within thirty days of the return of writs (the official result) following an election.

Even that only means, on a November 30 election, that Parliament would have to sit sometime in January 2014, depending on how long it took for the official result (the return of writs) to be declared.

I agree it isn’t a constitutional requirement, but to cancel the sitting due to start 20 August would be an act of political cowardice so blatant that the entire press would condemn it. It would be political stupidity beyond even Rudd’s myopia.

(This more than 200 words thus stays in the pending bin) CTSCTS, it is an unthreaded post.

[Myrrh, please post shorter posts] ED

The Great Delusion

AGW/CAGWs – how are you going to deal with this?

You have a cold 6000°C Star for a Sun calculated by planckians on the thin 300 mile wide atmosphere around the real Earth’s Sun, and so you say you get no direct longwave infrared heat from this.

That is not science.

That is fiction.

At some point you are going have to look that straight in the eye.

Sooner would be better than later for us oiks having to listen to and being penalised by your idiotic impossible claims for the properties and processes of our real world.

We, the oiks of this world, have a genuine grievance with you.

You are destroying our well being and dumbing down basic science for this and the next generation.

You are responsible for this scam because you continue to perpertrate the crime of imposing the faked fisics of this impossible world of AGW’s Greenhouse Effect onto us by claiming it is real.

It is a lie, a scam, a con, I can show you, and have shown you, some of the sleights of hand that went into creating it.

You have no excuse if you claim to be scientists to ignore the information I give from traditional well known up to date physics.

The AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget claims that “visible light from the Sun heats the Earth’s surface land and water”.

Visible light from the real Sun cannot do this. It is impossible from the real world properties and processes of visible light from the real Sun.

The AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget claims that “visible light from the Sun is what we feel as heat”.

We cannot feel visible light, or any of the shortwaves in the AGW GHE “shortwave in”, as heat. They are not hot. They are not thermal energies.

The AGW Greenhouse Effect energy budget claims that “no longwave infrared heat direct from the Sun gets through an invisible barrier at TOA”.

There is no “invisible barrier like the glass of a greenhouse at TOA” preventing the great direct thermal longwave infrared heat from our real millions of degree hot Sun from entering.

This direct radiant heat from our real millions of degree hot Star which is our Sun is what we feel as heat and which we feel heating us up inside and out. This is what raises our temperature and the temperature of land and water of the real Earth’s surface.

Your AGW Greenhouse Effect comic cartoon energy budget claims we get no real direct radiant heat energy from the Sun because it uses the real longwave infrared heat measurements direct from the Sun to PRETEND that this comes from “backradiation by greenhouse gases from the atmosphere under TOA”

That is the scam.

There is no Greenhouse Effect of “backradiation by greenhouse gases”.

Traditional science, real physics, still teaches those not dumbed down by the fake AGW fictional fisics that the Heat energy we feel as heat direct from our real millions of degree hot Sun is longwave infrared, also known as thermal infrared because it is heat. It is the real Sun’s great thermal energy, heat energy, on the move to us in heat transfer by radiation.

Near infrared of the AGW GHE energy budget which gives 1% of its “shortwave in”, is not a thermal energy, we cannot feel it as heat and it cannot heat us up.

“Far infrared waves are thermal. In other words, we experience this type of infrared radiation every day in the form of heat! The heat that we feel from sunlight, a fire, a radiator or a warm sidewalk is infrared. The temperature-sensitive nerve endings in our skin can detect the difference between inside body temperature and outside skin temperature”

“Shorter, near infrared waves are not hot at all – in fact you cannot even feel them.”

Either traditional science is wrong here or you AGW/CAGWs are..

Who created the KT97 and ilk comic cartoons of “shortwave in longwave out”?

“Greenhouse Effect
the atmosphere’s property of transmitting solar radiation while holding back terrestrial radiation, thereby contributing to the accumulation of heat by the earth. The atmosphere is comparatively quite transparent to shortwave solar radiation, which is almost entirely absorbed by the earth’s surface, since the albedo of the surface is generally low. The surface of the earth heats up by absorbing solar radiation and becomes a source of terrestrial, chiefly longwave, radiation. The atmosphere does not transmit this radiation very well and, in fact, almost completely absorbs it. Because of the greenhouse effect, when there is a clear sky only about 10–20 percent of the terrestrial radiation is able to pass through the atmosphere into outer space.

Interesting. Just watched ABC news on TV. Kevin’s smiling face was nowhere to be seen. Just Tony Berk (actual correct spelling) trying to justify the PNG solution.
I guess fearless leader has his head below the trench until he sees how the attack went.

Doesn’t the Labor party have to win seats?
Windsor’s and Oakshot’s seats will most likely go to the Nats.
Where is the Labor party going to pick up extra seats to make up for that?
The only thing I can see is maybe (MAYBE!) they may not LOSE as many as they were likely to.
That is probably not a bad thing?
Either way. . . it is highly, highly unlikely that Labor will win.. . because Kevin Rudd has a ‘media persona’ it’s likely that they may save some marginal seats like some of the western Sydney seats.
Don’t forget this is an Australian election. . . NOT an American presidential election.
Quite obviously . . . It’s possible to change a PM in Australia WITHOUT an election

Tony Windsor’s electorate of New England NSW will go to now Senator Barnaby Joyce who is the endorsed Nationals candidate who was born and raised there, has a family farming property there, who went to the University of New England, Armidale and who has a local wife and children born there. The seat is a traditional National safe seat and Windsor was once a National too.

I am fascinated why someone is red thumbing an OBVIOUS fact.
Windsor & Oakshot have retired and those seats will almost definitely revert back to the nats.
Where is Labor going to pick up EXTRA seats to make up for that?

From afar in NZ, would Windsor and Oakshot qualify for the term “carpetbagger” or did they just go rogue. Were they seduced by the baubles of office a la our own retiree gigolo Winston Peters or were they bought by more nefarious means?.

.
It is impossible to predict what KRudd will do at the moment, because right now he doesn’t know himself. You can bet your last dollar that phone polling started in marginal seats as soon as the six o’clock news was over last night (Friday), and will continue until tomorrow night (Sunday). The results of that polling will decide what happens next.

.
In just three weeks since he was re-instated as PM, KRudd has back-footed the Coalition on every single issue they could possibly have thrown at him in an election. All the Gillard lies and broken promises, the AWU – Wilson scandal, Slipper, the Craig Thomson affair, and more, all ancient history and nothing to do with Krudd, including Swan’s deficits.

The Carbon Tax is “gone” and electricity prices will go down, the unions are going to be cleaned up, the “Faceless Men” have been stripped of their power, and unions, business and the government are going to enter into another Hawke style “accord” to improve productivity and stimulate manufacturing.

And now the “piece de resistance”: the boats have been stopped. Dead in their tracks. Virtually overnight. Without risking antagonising Indonesia.

.
Yes, before you all start in on me, I know full well it is all utter BS. But to the average mug punter who gets his “facts” from the SMH and the six o’clock news, that’s how it is. And the laughingly mis-named “opposition” have no one to blame but themselves.

KRudd will be in Sydney right now, and his team will be furiously phone-polling. This time tomorrow night, KRudd will make a decision, based on that phone polling.

If he thinks the PNG refugee “solution” has given him the edge in the polls, Monday morning he will phone Admiralty House and make an appointment with the GG for that evening. Then he will attend the ALP General Conference (which “just happens” to be on, on that day, in Sydney), armed with his poll results. He will point out he can win the election for them, or he can delay until November 30, and spend the time ensuring the ALP never wins another election in their lifetimes. He will demand his ALP reforms, stripping the unions of power, are passed without amendment. He will probably get it.

He will go directly from the Conference to Admiralty House and request the GG dissolve Parliament, and issue writs for an August 24 election (Monday is the last day this can be done for that date). A well-oiled election campaign that has already been designed and set in place, will be fully underway by Wednesday.

On the following Sunday (July 28) he will appear as a guest on Andrew Bolt and will give a vintage KRudd performance (already booked and announced – another amazing coincidence). Around the end of the first week of August, the Coalition will finally wake to the fact that they are in the middle of an election that they are probably going to lose.

.
Or the weekend polling will not offer the results KRudd wants. In that case, he will span it out to November, and play it as the cards fall. KRudd is a sociopath torn between two overwhelming and almost mutually exclusive desires – to be re-elected as PM, and to destroy the party machine that knifed him the first place.

The first scenario outlined above, allows him to do both. Otherwise, it’s an either/or situation that he gets to decide upon, further down the track, as suits him.

Despise the guy all you like, he deserves it. But credit where credit is due – he has run rings around Abbott and the Coalition, he has split the Labor Caucus to his own advantage, he has the ALP and the Union movement by the short and curlies, and he has the media eating out of his hand.

.
You could be forgiven for thinking so, Andy, but no. Those incessant ads for various government services that blight your TV screen every advert break, precede every YouTube clip, and flash across the top banner at the Daily Telegraph while you’re reading Bolt, are NOT election campaign ads.

They are helpful infomercials designed to enlighten you about various government services available to make your life easier and more “equitable”. This is so, even if said government service is little more than a thought bubble at the moment (think NDIS, Gonski, NBN, and soon, Border Protection . . )

I appreciate that they look and sound just like election ads for the ALP, but they are not. The give-away is the final black screen shot, which says “Authorised by the Australian Government”.

Basically that means YOU – the taxpayer – paid for it.

When the election campaign starts, these helpful infomercials will continue, but will be interspersed with other ads crediting all these wondrous things to the All Omnipotent KRudd. These ads finish with a screen shot that says, “Authorised by the ALP”.

Basically that means the ALP paid for it, and will be reimbursed by YOU – the taxpayer – after the election, via the Australian Electoral Commission.

Kruddités noun, [plural]. /ˈkruh.dɪ.teɪz/Small pieces of half-baked legislation and government programmes for the brief purpose of dipping into the accompanying electorate before the main course of produce redistribution.

The ALP National Conference happens usually on the October long weekend and has the power to alter the ALP Rules to enshrine the Rudd rules.

My understanding is that the meeting tomorrow is a Caucus meeting, specially called to try to cement Caucus to his new ideas, but with no power to make lasting changes. A simple majority tomorrow can be overruled by a simple majority the day after. (Barrie Cassidy just confirmed this as I type, on “Insiders”).

You forget, Rudd is not like other people. What motivates him is not what motivates a normal person, and the way he thinks revolves around Rudd only. In his dreamworld he is invincible, and the people love him. His only fear is facing Parliament before the election.

.
My bad, Gnome. Trying to cram too much into too few words, too quickly, too late at night.

In fact, the NSW – and some VIC – ALP heavyweights (the party not the pollies) are meeting right now – Sunday – as we speak, to decide what direction they will give to their respective controlled members of the Caucus, which, as you quite rightly point out, then meet tomorrow, to decide on KRudd’s demands reforms.

From what little is being said, it would appear the ALP (the Party) will endorse the view that the Caucus (the Pollies) get to decide how the Leader is chosen. Meaning they can approve KRudd’s demands reforms.

Yes, that can be overturned at the next ALP Conference, but that isn’t until after the election, which means in KRudd-time it doesn’t even exist at the moment. A different battle for a different day.

.
Right now, KRudd’s focus is entirely on the weekend polling. That, and that alone, will decide his actions tomorrow. You’ve got to admit, having saturation advertising all weekend in Australian newspapers, ostensibly to tell the boat people not to bother – the door has now been closed, was a master-stroke.

It seems unappreciated, but for about 4-5 months both Fairfax and the Aus have been running softly-softly editorials advocating replacing Gillard with Rudd (good for democracy etc). This signalled that the Sun King had secured support from the editors-in-chief and their executive, so articles rehashing the ALP’s 6 years of destructive stuff-ups would not be prominent for very long

Ok, Fairfax’s sympathies are very well known, but the Aus ? About a year ago, Murdoch replaced the then editor-in-chief with one of the Whitlam clan. Articles sympathetic to CAGW started appearing. Various journos with the Aus started softly back-pedalling on ALP BS. (My view is that Murdoch just didn’t want another UK-type witch-hunt here)

So my only question on your analysis (which while pertinent is somewhat self-evident) is the issue of caretaker mode once election writs are issued. No, the zombie Parliament will not be recalled (Craig Thomson lying to Parliament has ensured that), but in caretaker mode, the Sun King can spend on no new initiatives, sign no new “agreements” with other countries nor continue stacking the courts. This would be intolerable to him, I suspect

So, I still think November 30 is most likely. I agree that Abbott is a boofhead who can’t touch him in any way that the average punter would see as important. Rudderless is campaigning on tax money while pretending he’s governing and there’s no reason for him to stop this for another 3 months

. . . but in caretaker mode, the Sun King can spend on no new initiatives, sign no new “agreements” with other countries nor continue stacking the courts

Ian, to all intent and purpose we are IN election “caretaker mode” already. Parliament hasn’t sat since KRudd took over.

That hasn’t stopped The All Omniscient One from reforming education (Gonski), guaranteeing disability care for all (NDIS), single-handedly providing faster-than-light internet (NBN), cleaned up the ALP and broken the back of union domination (leadership reforms), scrapped the Carbon Tax, halved our electricity bills, lowered the cost of living, AND stopped the boat people in their tracks.

All done by press-release, and without a scrap of legislation. Who needs a “Parliament”?

Yes, I know it’s all crap, but that is how the average mug punter sees it (polls at 50-50 today), and that’s how it will be rammed home to the waverers during the election campaign.

.
Your analysis leaves out the G20. KRudd is a sociopath and can function at many levels of self-consciousness, as required.
Right now in KRudd we have:

Sulky Self – who most definitely will not want to go to the G20 as the Caretaker PM, with an election looming – but will if he has to. That means probably no election in September or early October.

Satisfied Self – who would prefer not to go to the G20 with an election “in the future” but at least would be the active PM at the time, and not merely a caretaker. If things are “titchy” in the polls he will not want a long campaign. That means a November 2 or 9 election.

Smug Self – as above, but looking good in polls OR it looks like the ALP intend knifing him again. In either case he will want to drag out the pain (for the Coalition or the ALP – whichever), for as long as he can. That means a November 30 election.

Supremo Self – This scenario has KRudd going to the G20 on September 6, as the newly elected, newly minted, newly resurrected Grand Leader of OZ. Everybody will have to be just so nice to him, because HE (not just the “PM of OZ”), but, HE, Himself, His Grand Grandness, will be the Chair at next year’s G20 meetings.

.
There is no doubt which one KRudd wants. The polls this weekend will decide which one he settles for.

The host country rotates every year, the meetings are held in the host country, and the political head of the host country, or their delegate, occupies the Chair at the meetings. The final speech at the end of the final meeting in a year, is made by the delegate from the country which will be the next host. It is an acceptance speech.

Russia is the current host. The meeting on September 6 – 7 is the last one for this year. Next year the host country is Australia. One way or the other – short of assassination – PM KRudd will be making that acceptance speech on September 7.

However, there is a world of difference – to KRudd – between making that speech as a Caretaker PM, on behalf of the position of PM of OZ, and making the speech as “The Man” who will be the Chair for the following year.

Smug Self – as above, but looking good in polls OR it looks like the ALP intend knifing him again. In either case he will want to drag out the pain (for the Coalition or the ALP – whichever), for as long as he can. That means a November 30 election

But credit where credit is due – he has run rings around Abbott and the Coalition, he has split the Labor Caucus to his own advantage, he has the ALP and the Union movement by the short and curlies, and he has the media eating out of his hand.

IMHO
That may well be so MV, but that group is a tiny percentage of the electorate.
The electors (people I speak to every day in my line of work) see KRudd as a funny curiosity at the moment. Nothing…NOTHING he says or does will change the minds of a substantial portion of these electors.

Sure, the disillusioned die-hards, the public servants and other niche groups who would not have voted for Gillard may vote for KRudd (they most likely would have voted anything but Liberal anyway) but this won’t be enough to save Labor.

Prior to KRudd knifing Gillard we were looking at an historic landslide. Now it’ll just be an unexceptional win to the Liberals to the tune of about 8-12 seats.

*Proviso: Provided KRudd doesn’t go into a meltdown during one of his daily policy-on-the-run sojourns. In which case we are back to a landslide.

There is no way KRudd and Labor can “win” this coming election, and KRudd knows it. However, Abbott and the Coalition can sure as hell LOSE it, and KRudd fully understands that as well. Here is how a “Pete from Freo” summed up the Australian electorate in a comment on a recent thread on Catallaxy, who expressed it better than I ever could:

They will blithely put back into power the “scum of the middle class” for no other reason than their belief that Tony Abbott is the arse-hole that the press says he is.

I don’t think Abbott is an arse-hole, but he’s a fool; the more pragmatic he gets, the less of an alternative he offers. The only perceivable difference between the two major parties is that one of them, historically, has spent less of the taxpayers money (or at least, spent it slower), both are Centralists, desirous of centralising power to Canberra, both are still attached to the AGW myth, both are wish-washy on Aboriginal policy, both are wishy-washy on welfare, under both the public sector continues to grow, both are still attached to the idea of the National Curriculum, both are still attached to Medicare (which should be renamed “Frazercare” in honour of the fool who wasted the largest mandate ever given to a political party).

.
And therein lies the problem for the Coalition, and KRudd’s possible salvation. After five years of the Coalition playing at being “Socialist-lite”, there is no perceptible difference, to the electorate, between the major parties. And at least now the KRudd is “seeming” to do something, even if it is all election hot air. “Seeming” to do something is a long way short of actually doing something. But it is a hell of a lot more than not even “seeming” to do something, which is where KRudd has marooned Abbott and his merry band.

The question then becomes not, why would people vote for KRudd? But rather, why would they bother vote voting for anybody else?

If, as you and your catallxy quote says, there is no difference between the 2 parties, and if this is the voters perception (it probably is in the main) then it all comes down to personalities.

I can tell you categorically that most adults I get feedback from do not like KRudd at all and see him as an extension of Gillard. Left arm right arm if you will.
I can also tell you that the majority of voters are sick and tired of the leadership shennanigans of the Labor party. THEY WILL NOT VOTE LABOR UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE.
The only people who’ll vote for KRudd at mo are the young who aren’t going to vote green. They don’t follow politics but they do follow personalities. (The Greens C. Milne lost many of R. Browns ‘personal’ followers)

And then there’s the psychological consideration. Unfortunately, an articulate and colourful presenter gets through to the masses, whereas a hesitant, sweating presenter that looks and sounds uncomfortable in the spotlight just can’t compete – despite his undoubted keenness and most of the facts being in his favour.

Choosing the most emotive topic of our time (boat people invasions,) and delivering a slick ‘solution’ in a slick way may seal the deal for a slick presenter. That’s the way it’s done in those movies the masses watch.

I fear you’re probably right.
The ‘bring back Kevin’ campaign was led by ostensibly ‘conservative’ journalists notably Andrew Bolt and Chris Kenny in The Australian. I doubt that Bolt has ever been west of Docklands or that Kenny has ever spent half a day watching free-to-air TV.
I think enough people will continue to buy Kevin’s rhetorical rubbish, that Australian political history will move from comedy (2007-2010) to tragedy (2010-2013) to farce.

“Do you remember climate change? If you don’t, according to former climate reporter David Fogarty, part of the reason might be that his past news agency, Reuters, decided to cut back its climate change coverage just as other news organizations are coming to the same conclusion. Rather than being the evidence of a global, anti-science, climate-denying cabal, Reuters’s decision reflects a far more troubling trend: the news is covering it less because, frankly, we just don’t care anymore.”

“The blatant propagandist journalism serves only one useful purpose for us; to alienate the general public with their diatribes. Given the material they hand us nowadays, deploying the humour weapon against them usually suffices, but never for a moment think you can somehow persuade them to our viewpoint. You can never change a fanatic’s basic belief system, which is precisely why it should never be an objective. They are by now irrelevant to the common person, which is why the MSM, most recently Reuters, is cutting back on them and their input. Putting it in commercial terms, they just don’t sell like they used to.”

It took me fifty-three years (2013 – 1960 = 53 yrs) to realize it, but mainstream science and propagandist news journalism have served the same purpose for the past sixty-eight years (2013 – 1945 = 68 yrs).

Purpose:
1. To Unite Nations so there will be no more World Wars
2. To hide the source of energy that powered atomic bombs
3. To save the world (and its leaders) from nuclear annihilation

After 68 years of propaganda, a fanatic’s basic belief system will not be changed by logic. That is why I am now looking for a publisher who can convert the following message to the Space Science & Technology Committee into a children’s book:

Is this OT? Travelling in Scotland unearthed that as weather turns cooler (Sept./Oct,) sheep are prone to lie on roads in the afternoon, taking advantage of the stored warmth in the Tarmac. This Scottish sheep know about the UHI effect.
Should they be drafted to help the IPCC which denies that UHI is measurable?
Or should we conclude that believers in AGW are NaSaS? (Not as Smart as Sheep).

LOL. In rural Wales, on more than one occasion, my wife’s psychic abilities saved us from a messy collision. (“I think you’d better slow down”.) Where we live now, it is NaSaC (not as smart as cattle), but while bitumen space is preferable, lying down on dirt roads serves also. However, there will sometimes be other reasons, eg supplementary feeding arrives on roads.

Er…I call trumps on your Welsh sheep. Did you never visit the Forest of Dean district in the years before the Millenniall Foot & Mouth epidemic?

For non-English / Welsh readers its a small district just over the Severn from Bristol and a million aeons away. You will discover that far from being the amazing feat of imagination you thought Lord of The Rings to be it was perhaps close to bing a realistic depiction to the life of this weird place. Just dont mntion that to the locals. Back then (until the end of the Nineties) the sheep were marked by their owners and then allowd to wander loose around the roads and villages wherever they chose. There was some kind Mediaeval Royal charter still in effect that permitted (as in gave a prmit to) all sheep resident of the forest to go anywhere and enter any property. Literally, if you found one in your front yard eating the roses you were supposed by Royal edict not to interfere. When it came to roads…they were sitting about in the highway all over the show. I have some photos somewhere including ones of a gang of them (flock isnt the word for these groups of a few at a time) sitting on the sidewalk by the wall on a road-bridge.

04 April 2013
Following snow storms during the coldest March for 51 years more than 25,000 sheep, lambs and cattle are believed to have died, with the death toll due to rise as warmer melts snow to reveal more dead stock.

29 April 2013
The number of sheep and goats which died in the snow storms last month now stands at over 43,000.

I don’t get a chance to look in for about a week and what do you know… …the bullshit is deeper than ever. It sort of parallels the way things are going in the US news media in a way. We’ve had nothing but the George Zimmerman/Travon Martin affair for weeks. The world majors on trivia all the time while critical problems get ignored. And don’t ask, it isn’t trivia to those involved. But it isn’t the world shaking event that it’s being made out to be either.

In case you don’t recognize the names Zimmerman or Travon consider yourselves lucky. About a year ago a member of a community watch group named George Zimmerman saw a suspicious person in the neighborhood and made a 911 (emergency services) call to alert police. The 911 dispatcher told Mr. Zimmerman in no uncertain terms not to follow but to stay where he was and wait for the police. Instead, Zimmerman, who was legally armed, followed anyway. He was apparently attacked by the suspicious man he reported, Travon Martin — 17 years old — and was (again, apparently) being severely beaten by Martin until he managed to get to his gun and shoot Mr. Martin, killing him.

Oh, did I mention that Travon Martin is black and Zimmerman is not? According to the police investigation and in spite of the foolishness of Zimmerman in following Martin (which is not a crime), the shooting was justifiable self defense. Nonetheless there was a great outcry for Zimmerman’s blood, whereupon a trial was held (15 days worth) resulting in Zimmerman’s acquittal on the only charge, 2nd degree murder. But that is still not enough. The race hustlers are out to make all the [insert your preferred noun here, money, attention, whatever] that they can. There isn’t a news outlet that can stop talking about the matter and it’s become the greatest joke since the first caveman said something that one of his friends laughed at. There is, by the way, no one with a credible voice who thinks this was in any way racially motivated. But the aftermath certainly is. And from what was televised the prosecutor was a sterling example of someone with political motivation. Sound like anything you recognize?

No two are listening to each other. Everyone is an expert on what happened that evening in Florida whether they were there or not (and they were not). The one real eyewitness (as far as I can tell) says it was Zimmerman being beaten savagely by Martin, therefore self defense. A jury agrees. But that doesn’t settle it when Martin is black and Zimmerman is not. So George Zimmerman is now in hiding because of threats on his life.

Now why mention this? I’m glad you asked!!!! This case is a microcosm of the world we live in where every generation teaches its fears, its prejudices, its hatreds and grudges to its children. And we wonder why the world is such a mess. There is so much self-serving in this Zimmerman/Martin affair that it’s sickening.

And it all reminds me of the same damned syndrome I’ve followed for years about global warming — prejudice, fear, self-serving, hatred… …and these will be the epitaph of the human race if we can’t stop it. Every time Jo reports something it’s sillier, stupider and in every way more unworthy to get attention than the previous. But it does.

The failure is not science. The failure is not politics. The failure is in the human heart. We’re fooling ourselves if we think we can get out of this without a moral revival right across and around the world. There is no way out of the foulness that feeds on hatred, suspicion, self-serving and general disrespect for others except to clean up the inside first.

You may click me green or red as you like or ignore me. But you know I’m right.

Zimmerman was certainly under attack and fired in fear that he would be seriously hurt if the attack continued. So I think the answer is no. If Martin had not attacked him I doubt that he would have drawn the weapon. But we can only speculate about it.

Does the African American community want Zimmerman dead because he ‘looks’ white?

First of all, don’t lump all blacks together. Second, your guess is probably as good as mine.

What Im eluding to with the first question is that numerous vocal African Americans are claiming that if Martin was white he would still be alive, implying that Zimmerman would not have shot and killed Martin if he was white, completely overlooking the fact Zimmerman was having his head pounded into the pavement and was defending himself.

And the second question is eluding to the fact the African American community (ok, not all of them) want Zimmerman ‘brought to justice’ because he is (looks) white. They dont seem to care about the hundreds of black on black murders each year. Hell, they also dont care about the black on white murders.

There is/was nothing racial about this whole scenario.

More rhetorical questions:
What is Zimmerman was unarmed and Martin beat him to death?
What if Martin was white?
What if Zimmerman was black?
Would this entire story matter then?

This entire scenario just goes to show how racist the African American community is.

The rest of what you say is very intersting. FWIW…Zimmerman doesn’t look that ‘white’ to me. If he was being attacked then he was entitled to defend himself. If black attacks white or black it seems no one is interested. Woe betide anyone remotely ‘white’ if he defends himself against attack…just not permissible to the PC world we live in.

.
Jo’s “comments” system has an auto response list of words – like “kill”, “murder”, “shoot” and so on. If you used one of the words on the list, your comment goes straight to moderation. It’s nothing personal – it’s happened to me a few times.

Given that it’s only 9.30AM in Perth, and Jo is not an early riser, and Bolt will be on in half an hour her time, I would drop her an email at
support AT joannenova.com.au. That will bring it to the attention of Jo or one of the other mods.

Well Roy, suppose Martin didn’t get followed, the cops showed up, Martin is nowhere to be seen after they talk to Z and an hour or two later one of the nearby houses gets broken in to and a homeowner is assaulted /injured/killed and it turned out to be Martin that did it?
I urge everyone who comments on this case to actually read up on the history. The Sanford police chief refused to prosecute on good grounds. He lost his job for sticking to his principles as did the IT guy in the prosecutors office who handed evidence to the defence that the prosecution was improperly withholding. Even New York lawyers like Alan Dershowitz said there should not have been a prosecution.
Then you can all judge Ian H’s comments.

“I was Travon” sayeth the POTUS
Or words to that effect.
Someone will lose their life, I suspect, through that sound-bite.
And those that take that life will feel that they have the approval of a VIP – the ‘most important’ VIP on the planet possibly.
Is the X-factor moment the start of post-normal democracy?
What TF, when TF but, mostly, why TF did this ever get to happen?
Folks, we really need to get off our asses and get political.
We need to keep those b’s honest otherwise we’re facing a Mad-Max, Beyond-Thunderdome possible future!

Roy,
It is appalling that the US President made statements before the case even came to trial that Trayvon Martin could be he son, in a transparent attempt to persuade the public erroneously to Zimmerman’s guilt. Totally beyond his providence to prejudice a case sub judice, just as Sweden’s Leader prejudiced the rape case of Julian Assange by pronouncing his guilt before even being extradited.

But even worse was the insidiousness of the media having footage of Zimmerman with blood coming from a head wound and refusing to show it so the lynch mob mentality was allowed full rein. Despicable attempt to prejudice the case further. And the the piece de resistance to label Zimmerman white when he was Hispanic.

Shows what an appalling hate filled world we live in. When a white man kills a white it’s murder, when a black man kills a black it’s a social problem, When a black kills a white man it’s justifiable homicide, and when a white kills a black it’s a hate crime. In my mind, this colourising the issue for effect is by far the worst racism. It’s all MURDER, or manslaughter, or self defence according to extent, and circumstances, not the colour of the man’s skin.

When the truth is secondary to providing an opportunity to use a tragedy to further a “cause”, even a supposedly honourable one, your moral centre becomes dangerously flexible, and principles of dispassionate objectivity goes out the window. None more so evident than Obama’s prejudice on this issue, the highest office having been even more impugned than it already has been by 4 decades of corrupt or incompetent Presidents of both persuasions.

What about Trayvon’s right to defend himself against an armed and dangerous lunatic who was hunting him through the streets. Doesn’t he have the right to “stand his ground” as he is going about his lawful business in a public place? Zimmerman, armed with a gun, relentlessly hunted him and provoked a confrontation. Trayvon, unarmed, seems to have been mostly trying to get away, running away and even hiding behind bushes at one point in an effort to shake off pursuit. Eventually he turned, at bay, to fight with his fists when he just couldn’t get Zimmerman to leave him alone. In the weird logic of the US justice system that was apparently all the justification Zimmerman needed to shoot him dead in “self defence”.

Ian,
That MAY be true. The point is though that Zimmerman deserved the presumption of innocence, he deserved to not have trial by media with selective editing to attempt to discredit self- defence, and he deserved the President to not prejudice his case by suggesting that a boy he had never met, and knew nothing about was like his son, and that ostensibly he was guilty by Presidential pronouncement. Then once found not guilty, he was entitled to not be lynched by angry mobs of disgruntled men and women who know nothing really about the facts of the case other than what the media have fed them. Unfortunately, if Zimmerman is guilty as you say, then that is not how justice works, otherwise we may as well dispense with a court system and let NBC decide who is innocent (OJ, MJ) and who is guilty.

Your comment presumes that the police, the laws and the courts can be trusted to deliver justice. In the US this isn’t so. That is what the issue is here.

Note that it was the original police decision to release Zimmerman without charging him at all that first brought attention to this case. The circumstances; a white man pursuing an unarmed black man through the streets, gunning him down, and then claiming self defence; were extraordinary. While Zimmerman certainly has a right to plead self defence, his bizarre explanation of events did not deserve to be taken at face value and not tested in court. Note that it was only public attention and anger that got the case into court at all.

Now the trial is over and Zimmerman has been judged not guilty; by a jury please note, consisting entirely of white women and instructed, according to the silly laws of Florida, to find him not guilty unless they were convinced beyond reasonable doubt that he was not afraid for his personal safety when Trayvon finally turned on him with his fists. Why white women? White because this is the US south. And women because men might have been inclined to judge Zimmerman’s explanation for resorting to lethal force when faced only with fists with much greater scepticism.

Zimmerman has been found not guilty. He is out. He cannot be retried. He is off scot free. He is not even guilty of mansluaghter or wrongful death or reckless misuse of a firearm or any of those lesser charge you might think should apply when a man with a gun shoots an unarmed stranger in the street. They gave him back his gun and a pat on the back so now he can hunt down other black people he doesn’t like the look of. What is going on now really has nothing to do with Zimmerman and you misunderstand it if you think that it is.

What we now see is the public of the US issuing judgementy on the legal process in Florida that delivered this verdict. The legal system in the US is a notoriously crooked farce. This case has focused public anger on just how bad and inequitable the system is. It is healthy anger at a broken system with bad laws that does not deliver justice. That is what people are protesting about. This isn’t a lynch mob out to hang Zimmerman. These are people who are pissed off at bad courts, racist police, and stupid laws that let a man hunt down another and kill him without consequences. And they are exercising their right to protest about it.

As for the president – it is his role in the US system to be at the center of things whenever they engage in one of these regular episides of national naval gazing. He is expected to comment – to help shape the force of public protest and channel it hopefully into a useful program of action. That would be true if he were black or white. In his position, remaining silent on such an issue which is currently the focus of national attention is simply not an option. His job demands that he speak.

Kevin, the term Hispanic seems to be a bit vague in the racial sense, where they have happily inter doodled with black people their offspring are considered Mulato meaning of mixed race. Zimmerman looks to me as if he is of neither description as it were. He looks Mexican whatever the racial comp is. His race is of no import here, his actions are. I guess this only proves that this whole issue that ascribing blame on the issue of race in this case is at the least fraught with contradictions. What it also shows is that far to many people are too quick to use race as a touchstone. Barack Obama was wrong to say what he did. Not becoming of an American President and sure to lead to discord and division. Great leaders unite, bad ones seek points of difference and polarise.

Yes, he is mixed race. However, persons with mixed racial heritage often lean to one of their racial heritages more than others. I had a friend who’s children were “black” and “white” and they went to every pro-African American event there was. They were never referred to as mixed race, only black. On the other hand, one of my relatives (also black/white) was raised in an all-white neighborhood and in no way related to the black community. It mostly depends on the person and sometimes the parents.

Ian,
You feel strongly that an injustice has been done, I can appreciate that.

But,
There are 2 components that must be confirmed in the mind of any Jury before a guilty verdict can be handed down.

Actus Reus – Did the accused commit the act.
Mens Reus – Did the accused intend to commit the act.

There was no actual evidence that Zimmerman intended Martins outcome, as reviewed by authorities, as an eyewitness has recounted under oath, as confirmed by a jury member.
You have ascribed a wide variety of actions to Zimmerman that are not supportable by actual evidence.

That you would now particpate in a ‘witch hunt’ decrying Zimmermans actions suggest that you would be all too happy to to act in the same self-rightous manner that you ascribe to Zimmerman.

If you want to make such statements I can’t stop you. And it would take much too long to pick apart everything you said and throw it back at you. But you distort the known facts, the opinion of competent authorities and in general, you look like a lynch mob would look.

If that isn’t enough said, I can go on. The bottom line is that you’re not helping anything. Jumping to conclusions not supported by anything is not a virtue.

Ian, when anyone dies prematurely, that’s not good.
To pick a candidate for preferred internment before someone else, and presumably without any personal connection appears a tad sick.
Hope you’re not sick Ian but if you are, get well soon.

Had George Zimmerman followed the very good advice he got from the 911 operator no one would have died. The police would have handled the matter and while I’m certain Travon Martin would not like being stopped, as soon as he had shown that he had reason to be where he was he would have been on his way home safe and sound. And no one would ever have heard the names George Zimmerman or Travon Martin beyond the bounds of the community where this happened. Yes, the wrong man died that night. But it’s because no one should have died that night.

You have your opinion of what happened and of what should have happened. Yet you were not there to see it, neither were you in the courtroom, much less on the jury. What we have as far as I can tell is one credible witness to part of what happened and two 180 degree opposed stories about the event. I find no reason to doubt that the police did a good job of the investigation and, as I said, the jury agreed.

Life has enough trouble without rushing to judgment. We complain about those who want us to commit economic suicide based on no real information. I hope that makes my point.

Anyway, I truly appreciate the sentiments expressed in #16. The only way to raise ourselves out of the mire of moral equivalence we are drowning in is to start with a few well-established principles and stick to them, even if they don’t always give the outcome you believe just or fair. After all, none of us are infallible or are able to be wholly unbiased, so principles of fair play, impartiality and presumption of innocence, etc are necessary for reducing the ability of pressure groups, vested interests and manipulative political ideologues to subvert honesty, integrity and the pursuit of a semblance of truth and justice. The fact that this is not always achievable is irrelevant, as history shows those who attempt to circumvent this often negate there own cause, sometimes for generations.

Senator McCarthy comes to mind, who fostered a reactionary propagation of Marxist sympathisers with his HUAA witch-hunt, pushing vast numbers of centrist academics hard to the left. An own goal whose ripple effect is now of tsunami proportions in our modern Western society as we speak.

Had George Zimmerman followed the very good advice he got from the 911 operator no one would have died.

Maybe.

I am a neighborhood watch member and have been for 10 years. In that time I’ve made many calls to 911. They were rarely able to give good advice. They follow protocol, read scripts, screen calls. They aren’t bad people but to most of them it is just a job.

Zimmerman was trying to better his neighborhood. Trayvon should have been raised to know the value of that. Trayvon could have been a member of that neighborhood patrol. He wasn’t, neither were his parents. Think about it.

911 is apparently better trained here than where you live, Mark. When I had a very serious allergic reaction they knew exactly what questions to ask my wife and what she should do if necessary to keep me going until help arrived.

Zimmerman was trying to better his neighborhood.

No doubt true. But he was also certainly frustrated and more than a bit angry about the crime in the neighborhood. That’s a bad combination sometimes. The idea behind the stand your ground attitude does need to be reexamined as a lot of complainers have said. I think withdrawal is far better than confrontation under the circumstances. Zimmerman had no skin of his own at risk that night. If he was calling 911 about someone trying to break into his home it would be an entirely different matter. But that was not the case.

Mike Borgelt asks,

Well Roy, suppose Martin didn’t get followed, the cops showed up, Martin is nowhere to be seen after they talk to Z and an hour or two later one of the nearby houses gets broken in to and a homeowner is assaulted /injured/killed and it turned out to be Martin that did it?

But that is speculation. Pre-judging someone is a very dangerous thing. It says, “I think you’re about to commit a crime, therefore I’m justified in scaring the stuffing out of you by following you to make sure you don’t do anything.” Trouble resultd from that and I’ll bet George Zimmerman now wishes he’d not followed Mr. Martin.

Here’s a little true story. One night as I was driving home late at night I had some jerk start playing games with me on the freeway. I didn’t like it a bit and after he finally gave it up I got behind him and started following him — objective of course, to scare the stuffing out of him. And I did. He got off the freeway as soon as he recognized that I was following him and did everything he could to lose me. But he couldn’t. I finally gave it up and let him go on his way. I was thinking I had taught him a lesson he wouldn’t soon forget and I’m sure I did exactly that. But since that time I’ve regretted every last second of that little adventure. It was dangerous even with lighter traffic at nearly 11:00 PM. And he could have turned on me, leaving me up the creek for a way to back out of trouble. So I’ve been there and looking back, I don’t like it.

In answer to Mike: The law has always been that you cannot act on mere suspicion. If you are directly threatened, then by all means defend yourself. But the speculation that Martin actually meant harm to anyone doesn’t justify a confrontation — not legally or morally. Zimmerman is lucky that he doesn’t have a lot more trouble than he has. I think he’s not guilty of any criminal act but civil action is another matter. I think he’s made his trouble by his own bad judgment and is going to have to go through it the best way he can.

Actually, we don’t know that “no one would have died”. George Zimmerman would not have been part of outcome, unless Martin decided that Zimmerman was showing fear by retreating and decided to beat Zimmerman because he could. Also, we don’t know that Martin would not have gotten physical with someone else in the gated community. None of this is obvious.

Personally, I think it looks like a case of “macho” run amok. Both got into posturing and things went downhill. Neither would back down and a very bad thing happened. I do agree if Zimmerman had stopped following, it would have more than likely defused the situation (though we cannot be sure of this). As noted, however, it is not illegal to follow someone, though it may be a bad idea.

“Oh, did I mention that Travon Martin is black and Zimmerman is not?”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Not quite true Zimmerman is mixed race. His mother is a Afro-Peruvian and part of his extended family is black.

Obama’s puppet masters picked the wrong case to make an example of because Zimmerman is NOT WHITE, he LOOKS Hispanic and his black and Hispanic family members are not happy campers. (lost referenceof interview)

However Obama just stuck his other foot in and stated “Trayvon Martin could have been me, 35 years ago”

OH, Well what can you expect from a Community Rabble Rouser Organizer. The US Department of Justice even sent people out to organize protests! link

As an American I am getting really really tired of the politicians continually stirring the pot on racism. It is going on two hundred years it is time to stop beating that dead horse.

Are there any photos of Obama with a stocking cap flipping off the photo taker? Or standing in a “gangsta” pose? Obama said he could have been Trayvon–or Trayvon could have been his son. Can we look forward to Sasha or Melia in gang colors, face piercings, flipping off the picture taker? Think that could make the cover of Rolling Stone? Obama would be so proud–or at least that’s his claim with Trayvon.

But now there are actual Facebook groups urging someone to murder Zimmerman, people are posting on them under their real names, Facebook is doing nothing, none of those people inciting murder are receiving any scrutiny. 92% of black Americans are murdered by black Americans. 83% of non-black Americans are murdered by black Americans. One rare non-black (actually non-white) American killing a black American receives all the attention those vast numbers of other murders do not. why? Meanwhile, a guy who sings a song celebrating a cop killer as a hero was made a guest of honour at the…uh…White House. If you you dont know, can you guess his skin colour?

Ace be careful, if you make too much sense you will be branded racist
Remember the Rodney King riots? have a look at the actual crime stats on it, it was basically a free for all and reality check on how things can go pear shaped real quick.
Personally I find the need for any human to kill another tragic and a trait that will hold us back on improving as a species, but realistically we live on a planet that it’s own nature continues on life and death struggles (carbon based energy) so the act of killing is always present.
I was taught to “Treat others as you find them” and always have.

Thats right Yonniestone. Isnt it ironic though that today in Western societies that defeated Communism we live under the imposition of a Marxist narrative (that I dont think was even imposed in Communist states) that if a person comes from a group that is disadvantaged, then to treat them as they treat you (or “as you find them”) IS a racist act. In that narrative, if you are not from a minority group and a person who is from a minority group does every wrong deed in the book to you, it aint their fault but the fault of “your” community.If they murder you, its by implication, in some sense, “your” fault.

Notice also how this applies the principle of “communal guilt” or collective culpability to all non-minority parties (as members of the “oppressing” majority). How ironic, that is supposed to be the key feature of racism!

This “principle” is even extended to situations where the “oppressing majority” is in fact the minority. For example, Christians are ruthlessly persecuted wherever they are a minority in the Islamic world. But Western Leftists attribute that to the “racism” of the communities the victims are part of. The ultimate case is that of Jews in the Middle East. Hence the tiny comma-state that is Israel isdepicted as responsible for the desire of its huge neighbours to obliterate all Jews.

“Racism” is uncontroversially said to be a Marxist concept.The power dynamics in the narrative may come from Marx. But the word itself comes from Trotsky. He invented the word as a term to describe the attitude of communities that refused to relinquish their native culture and system to be replaced by “internationalism”. Another irony, because by that definition, “multi-culturalism” (in which minorities are expected to retain their distinct culture and ways of doing things) is what Trotsky would have called “racist”.

Ace thanks for the insight, the Marxist concept is interesting.
From experience I’ve found all ethnic backgrounds to have a certain percentage of racist (prejudiced) people in them and yes it seems to be exasperated and even encouraged by the MSM or Western society in general, almost Masochistic.

I have encountered more people over the years who will stop and say “is that politically correct?” or “can you say that?” a definite sign of mass thought conditioning working, and when you question their questioning you are treated with either shock or wariness of your contempt of a law that doesn’t and shouldn’t exist.

On a lighter note locally we have a large children’s indoor play park, it’s a business and recently I took some kids to a birthday party there, there’s an obstacle course and as a prize the child will get a sticker for completing it.
One of the kids is of Sudanese descent, bright kid nice family, and upon completing the course received a sticker so we took a photo of all the kids proudly showing their stickers which read “I’m a little monkey”.

Now honestly with all the havoc going on it never clicked that there might be some racial controversy until a Mum not in our group pointed it out and then continued to abuse us with all sorts of racist accusations, I asked if it’s ok for every other child there to wear that sticker why single out the black child as a problem?

Yes it’s a hypocrisy with so called racism and a case of creating a problem that doesn’t exist, also that child’s parents never mentioned it even when he went home with it on, like all the other kids, now I’m not naïve and have a keen sense of humour but I will not be a victim to PC.

Yep…thats another one they get you by…to be “colour blind” (ie, treat everyone the same) is ALSO “racist”! Because you are supposed to make xceptions and allowances…constantly, in everything, however trivial or acidental.

Funny example: once many aeons ago someone I knew in a previous life (this isnt a fairy tale either, except poetically speaking) was chatting with a neighnour about the neighbours daughter who had been on holiday. My confrere asked “Did she get a good sun-tan?” The holiday daughter was black.

Th girl didnt think of her neighbour by skin colour. She felt embarrassed at the dumbness of the question (she was, in truth, a very thick girl) but thats all. TODAY she would b billed as racist… because she WASNT mindful of colour.

You cannot win. Thats how all ideological tyrranies work. By creating a situation where whatever you say or do may or may not be wrong and the only way of resolving it is to defer to the high-priests of the system and their self-appointed missionaries in every walk of life. technically known as [Snip crass].

… a member of a community watch group named George Zimmerman saw a suspicious person in the neighborhood and made a 911 (emergency services) call to alert police.

I am curious about why the observed person was considered “suspicious”?

I don’t know how the system works in the U.S., but in New Zealand, local community watch groups meet on a regular basis, over tea and biscuits, where they get a briefing from the local police community liaison person.

During the briefings, photo’s, showing “persons of interest” to the police, are often circulated. Usually, the photo’s are of missing persons, or of somebody who is wanted in connection with a police inquiry. If a member of the watch sees such a person, they are told not to approach them, but to contact the police as soon as possible.

If the same system works in the States, then it is possible that Travon Martin so resembled a man in one of the photographs, to have raised suspicions with Zimmerman, and that would have formed the basis of the phone call to the police. In Zimmerman’s mind, his community duty would be to keep an eye on Martin, until such time as the police turned up.

It is reasonable to assume that, if Martin realised that he was being followed, then he could have felt threatened to the point where he felt the need to defend himself, and so the tragic story unfolds.

In such a scenario, nobody would really be to blame, since they all acted for the best as they saw it. Tragic though it was.

Of course, that scenario won’t stop those who want to capitalise on the story from doing so. But I prefer to apply Occam’s Razor, and blame stupidity rather than intent.

What people here have I think overlooked (I often miss things but it bears repeating anyway) is that in the locale in question there is whats called a new “Stand Your Ground” law. This means that unlike English style polity’s where the public is never supposed to “get involved” the citizen is expected to want to use as much force as he/she feels fit to assert their authority in any situation involving criminal activity of another party. These laws are I if I understand it correctly a recent development in some parts of the USA and move the goal-posts considerably in favour of gun-carrying citizens. Moreover, this is part of a trend in the opposite direction from the gun-control hoopla we hear so much about. For example Illinois recently changed the law to make carrying of firearms for self-defence legal for the first time I believe. These laws reflect the desire of the voting public for more freedom to carry and use firearms in contradistinction to the shrill urgings of left-wing politicians and campaigners for more gun restriction.

As for Martin, there had been a series of burglaries in the area, should Zimmerman have allowed him to walk off into the night without merely walking along in sight until the police came then he would have potentially permitted another burglary. They say “followed”. But what does that mean? Just one person walking the same route as another. Sure its irritating, it happened to me once. But if I had jumped on the guy., knocked him flat, sat on his chest and pummelled his head against the ground…then I think I might have expected some violent response also. Ultimately, the gun is the last resort of an unfit and non-violent person against an agile and ill-willed attacker.

The fact Zimmerman was on the phone to the police should be ample proof he had no ill intentions. Would a racist bigot bent on a lynching call the police so they could sit in and listen in rel-time?

I don’t know how the system works in the U.S., but in New Zealand, local community watch groups meet on a regular basis, over tea and biscuits, where they get a briefing from the local police community liaison person.

Rereke, there isn’t a “national system” that I know of. The groups I’ve heard about are organized with local police permission if not support. Our group is similar to what you describe. We have a neighborhood police officer meet with us and our members are screened by the police department. We are instructed to not approach anyone but instead call 911. As a condition of being a member, we are barred from carrying weapons while on patrol even if otherwise legally able to do so. We do have permission to carry a police radio. Our neighborhood is pretty quiet and not inner city with lots of crime. We try to keep it that way by watching the parks and party spots after dark. To our credit, we have helped the police catch some bad people by providing extra eyes during late nights.

George Zimmerman screwed up and probably violated the rules of his watch group by getting too close to someone that proved to be dangerous. That said, once the fight began, Zimmerman had every right to protect himself. The fact that he had a weapon and the reality that Trayvon might have found it and even used it on Zimmerman has also got to be weighed in the balance. Permit to carry people are cautioned about that when they receive training. In my opinion, Zimmerman showed great restraint because he didn’t have his weapon out way before he was taken to the ground. Once he was on the ground and being beaten he was, no doubt, in grave danger. Clearly too, Trayvon was no angel. At minimum he could have run away but he didn’t.

If Zimmerman attacked Martin, then that would have self-defense, if Martin had reason to believe Zimmerman would kill him. You can’t just shoot someone because you are arguing with them. There has to be an actual attack or very real threat. Zimmerman had wounds.

Bar fights do sometimes lead to people getting shot, though in many bars, no guns are allowed and/or the bartender has a gun. They don’t last long. Also, you usually end up going to jail for murder since in a bar it’s really tough to prove that your life was threatened, unless the other guy had a gun. There are plenty of witnesses and maybe even video. You can’t “legally get shot dead” over a bar fight–your life has to be threatened.

People read about this stuff in the news and think the USA is the Wild West. It is not. Actually, there are a lot more killings in Chicago and DC than in the states with lenient gun laws (both of those cities have “strict” gun laws that are obviously not enforced). Many of the homicides involve drug trafficking. It is not common for two people to end up doing what Zimmerman/Martin did. Many homicides occur over jealousy, money, etc. You are absolutely not safe just because the person does not have a gun. We had a college professor and his girlfriend killed with a cross-bow. The professor was in his classroom teaching at the time. Family dispute. (While that sounds scary, remember this was a family dispute. Only family members were in danger–all the students were allowed to leave the classroom.) It’s not the weapons, it’s the intense anger that is the problem. All murders are hate crimes.

And without guns, Matb, it can lead to a broken neck, death or permanent injury inflicted by some fecking thug who (as they invariably do) picks on a weak guy or woman, whilst honed in the art of maiming and murder using their using their bare hands.

No, guns are the only equaliser. ONLY when people are permitted to carry a gun are thugs at a disadvantage. If you aint been attacked by a six foot foor steroid fuelled maniac with lightening-bolt tattoos on the sides of his head and a samaurai top knot…as I HAVE…then you are talking out of your arse (as usual).

I was lucky, someone drew the maniac off me and there was refuge to hand. Otherwise,only a gun could have saved me.

I recommend this:

At the very least, where guns are banned so should be all martial arts and bench-press style body-building facilities.

years ago I held a combined security license in Victoria Australia, apart from a few times doing crowd control (bouncing) my main work was patrol work in a car, checking businesses, alarm response etc, and cash escort jobs.
All our guys carried a firearm (.38 special) and soon I got my license to carry as well, now the thing is when I was unarmed (except asp baton) I would go to a cash drop with a customer and if anyone was hanging around looking dodgy or large numbers of people in the middle of the night we would call it off, money’s insured were not.

After when armed you only had to step out and as soon as someone got a look at that gun & holster quite often they’d move on without question, even a group of 20 who shouted threats before we got out suddenly went very quiet when they saw that gun.
Now you have to use common sense and if some drug crazed fool doesn’t calm down after seeing the gun then best to move on and don’t create a situation.

I think it’s more about the aptitude of the person carrying a gun than the gun itself, almost all shooting crimes are committed with illegal firearms and idiots with a criminal aptitude, I have never met a gun club member that has committed a gun related crime and anyone who’s stupid with firearms are thrown out.

Intersting testimony. I came accross an incident in which gun ownership actually prevented the owner using physical violence.

As you know, in the UK we arent normally allowed to own powder powered firearms…I put it like that because in British law, any airgun capable of breaking the skin is classed as a “lethal firearm”. To me a firearm by definition uses “fire”, but anyway, thats the law. Its written by asses.
To own an airgun above 6ft Lbs power (pistol) or 12ft Lbs (rifle) requires a firearms licence.

A guy on an airgun web-forum told of an incident involving a nearby neighbour who murdered a pet of his. This is a few years ago and was a few years before that. This guy, who had a firearms licence, came home to find the dead animal. He stormed off to the neighbour he knew did it, and the man made some pathetic excuse. The gun owner, he said, was so furious he would have physically attacked the other man in an instant. Only one thing stopped him, the thought that if he did he would lose his firearm licence!

What if Trayvon Martin had, [del] drawn a gun and shot Zimmerman? Would have have also had every right to do so?

Yes, if he was in fear for his life.

Now you noticed I deleted part of your words? The question really should be; who started the fight? The US jury of peers (of the accused) must have concluded that Trayvon started the fight AND by his actions caused Zimmerman to fear for his life.

It seems to me that any common scuffle/bar fight could lead to someone legally getting shot dead?

I don’t know that Matt is off his meds. He is behaving like most people who have no good comeback or argument for something and jump straight into the “insanely absurd” arena hoping to make everyone follow their descent. He appears to be incapable of understanding that “stalking innocent people and shooting them dead because they feel threatened” is illegal. One is immediately arrested when identified as the perpetrator. Most Americans understand that concept as it is pretty simple. I’m sure that’s just because he believes people cannot be trusted and have to be supervised and disarmed at all times (who supervises the supervisors????). Anyway, it might be necessary to reel in his comments if he continues to show such complete ignorance and inability to learn, to save him more embarrassment.

Mattb, IS off his meds. First he sees posts that aren’t there then he sees post that are. Not to mention the wild crazy extreme language. Nice guy this Mattb. We need more like him in political office. Reminds me of a guy named Weiner.

Now you noticed I deleted part of your words? The question really should be; who started the fight? The US jury of peers (of the accused) must have concluded that Trayvon started the fight AND by his actions caused Zimmerman to fear for his life.

The way I’ve heard it is that Martin caught Zimmerman completely by surprise, jumped him from hiding in other words. I can’t vouch for that because I wasn’t there but it would explain Martin’s ability to knock Zimmerman down and begin beating him. Otherwise there might have been a more evenly matched fight going on.

I’m not sure that should be the question. I could start a fight/scuffle, and the fight may progress to me actually feeling threatened with death, and surely I’d be entitled to fatally would the person I’m in a fight with? Clearly you can start a scuffle without ever genuinely causing the other person to fear for their lives.

I don’t really give a flying f*** what you think the question should be. I note though, how you attempt to change the terms from fight to fight/scuffle to scuffle. Slimy eel-like Leftist.

Your scenario is not the way the story unfolded for Martin and Zimmerman based on evidence and is a twist of reasoning and irrelevant. The LAW permits one to use deadly force when one is reasonably in fear for ones life. You can spout on about all the scenarios you want to invent and make stupid rationalizations but the LAW is still the LAW.

Zimmerman prevailed in a court trial including a jury of his peers. He was found innocent of any crime. His use of a weapon to defend himself IS SUPPORTED BY THE LAW.

You Mattb can stuff your scenario. If you are visiting any of the States with such laws, you should not start a fight because the other half might fear for her life. A jury probably would not let you off with such a claim just because the girl was tougher than you thought and kicked your ass after you started the fight. You should not start the fight (Sound familiar to my point after all?) However, if she pinned you to the ground, banging your head on the sidewalk and saying “tonight you are going to die” it probably isn’t a “scuffle”.

If you want to wander around these made up scenarios how about this: You start the fight, the girl is kicking your ass and saying the above. Your wife comes upon the scene sees the girl on top saying those things. Does she have the right to use deadly force to save your stupid ass? Would she bother?

Feel free to “ignore the random waffle” because there isn’t a post “17.8.2.2.1

“2) you CANNOT be the aggressor and claim self defense.
If you start a fight, you cannot claim self defense. Even if you commit an assault the other person steps up the violence/aggression and commits a felonious assault against you, and you in turn commit an assault with intent to do great bodily harm against them, you cannot claim self defense as to your GBH because you were the aggressor.”
(http://nesselandkessellaw.com/how-does-self-defense-work/)

This is only one reference but if you look up self-defense, you will find that self-defense cannot be claimed if YOU start the fight. It’s your own fault if you end up dead. As for whether or not your wife can save you, as Mark D. asked, it seems likely that if she did decide you were worth it, she could if she “came upon the scene” and had no knowledge that you were the aggressor. However, if she was there when you hit the girl first, she cannot use deadly force to save you. Maybe she could jump in and help you beat up the girl? Of course, you are both guilty of assault in that case.

If you start the fight and cause physical harm, you will be charged with assault, even if you don’t use deadly force.

mark D: “I don’t really give a flying f*** what you think the question should be.”

Matt b: “you’re such a dickwad”

Sheri: I’m pretty sure its not that clear cut. to quote the nest bit of your dial a lawyer website:
“3) you CANNOT use overly aggressive force.
You cannot kill someone because they punch you in the stomach. The force you use must be only that which is necessary to repel the force which you are facing. If you have a “reasonable belief” that you or another person are at risk of losing your life OR face the threat of great bodily harm, you may use deadly force in defending yourself. But if the threat of force is less than that, the force you use in your defense cannot be deadly.”

Now, before you come back and tell me the last one says Zimmerman could not plead self-defense, it merely states what the prosecution will argue. Which was unsuccessful in this case.

As for what constitutes the proper use of force, that is what a jury is for. In the US, we have what we call a trial. Both sides present their arguments and the jury makes a decision. It doesn’t matter what some twit reading the information in a newspaper thinks nor does it matter what a blogger thinks. The law says you go to court and a jury decides. So it doesn’t matter one even tiny, tiny bit what you think in this matter was correct. It doesn’t matter how you interpret the law. You’re not the jury. You can rant all you want, but no one really cares. The system worked the way it is supposed to and if you don’t like the outcome, no one cares. Get over it.

Should you ever be attacked in the US and have to use deadly force to defend yourself (assuming you don’t chose to just be beaten to death), there will be lawyers, a jury and a trial. The jury will decide whether you were justified or not. If that bothers you, don’t live in or visit the US. Problem solved.

I disagree with the premise that you can’t consider a punch to the stomach deadly force either. People have died from such blunt force and if the puncher was say Mike Tyson and screaming “I’m going to kill you” I think a jury might be swayed. The key element is reasonable fear for your life. Fortunately the courts juries and judges are wiser than Mattb.

Okay, Mattb. Real life example of what happens when you are dumbass with a gun and alcohol. This guy lost his fiancé, his wedding is never going to happen and he’s headed for jail. You definitely cannot go around shooting people in response to a bar fight (saddest part–the guy who beat him up is not the one he shot).

An unknown person was in a GATED community that had had a rash of robberies by someone identified as a black teenager/young man.

Obama is trying to make it look like “Racial Profiling” yet Zimmerman had to be prompted by the 911 operator to identify the persons probable race. Also he was attacked near his truck so it looks like Zimmerman may have been returning to his vehicle as suggested by the 911 operator. (Operator is NOT POLICE and so can not order anyone to do anything)

gai.slight correction to your choice of words, not a “a black teenager / young man” but a person who fitted the perpetrators description, regardless of colour, gender or age. Thats what Martin was. There is no evidence Zimmerman saw him as “black”.

Zimmerman didn’t tell 911 that Martin was black. However, 911 then asked if he was black and Zimmerman responded affirmatively. I believe that’s the sequence of events.

The unfortunate thing about racial features such as skin color is that they are an integral part of your visual identity. The police will always want to narrow down their search if they can and skin color is one way that definitely works if you know it. Beards, distinctive hair and visible tattoos are also useful. If someone is described as being black, having or not having a beard, etc., you have reduced your search space greatly. And none of it is racially motivated.

Of course, but in one US city, New York I believe, there’s even been a move to actually ban police officers from even mentioning a persons ethnicity or skin colour! Others and elsewhere would likely follow. in Seattle, the FBI have been pressured into removing from buses a poster they were trialing there showing the 16 most wanted terrorists. The reason: the 16 most wanted terrorists all appeared to be Muslim.

Yes, utter stupidity is in full control in many places. But no matter how many people are willing to stand up and declare that the sun rises in the west and sets in the east, it still won’t be true. And anyone who acts on that idea will soon come to some form of grief. That goes for New York City and Seattle as well as some small community in Florida.

We have to get over the damned idea of racial or ethnic group identity and start learning to deal with each case as it really exists. We have to start giving the benefit of the doubt where there’s doubt and face up to what’s really in front of us. Otherwise we’ll stay in this Hell of stupidity until we fall as a civilization.

Roy I’m a pessimist, you’ve maybe noticed. I’ve decided to stop worrying about society and civilisation on that level. I’m trying now to focus on m and the even bigger picture, which is truly eternal. But of course its still something to talk about.

I’m glad I came back to look over this topic. It looks like I sparked what must be one of the longest running “debates” in the history of Jannenova. And the degeneration of the discussion after MattB started commenting is nothing less than spectacular.

Matt,

Self defense is permitted with whatever is sufficient force to either disable your attacker or escape him. The ideal is to use only the minimum necessary force. But the question is always, “What force is actually available that you can use?” It is rare that exactly enough force to stop the fight will miraculously show up in your hand. You’re under intense pressure and decisions have to be made in a hurry. Hindsight may dictate something different but you have no time for deliberation. And in a case where you have been overpowered by your attacker and all you have available is a gun, shooting the attacker is definitely your option — also legal, period. You may or may not intend to kill the attacker but you must make your shot count.

This is something I learned in a couple of schoolyard fights with a pair of bullies and I’ve never forgotten the practical lesson. You must prevail at any cost.

PS:

Do come to the States and meet real everyday Americans. You’ll find us just like everyday Australians. If you cut your hand you bleed and if I cut my hand I bleed. A large majority of Americans want all this race nonsense and the associated violence to disappear. It’s helping no one. Martin Luther King’s dream of a world where you judge others by the content of their character has been co-opted by a bunch of self serving con artists. They don’t represent me. They don’t represent Mark D. They don’t represent Sheri or anyone else with enough sense to come in out of the rain. They represent only their self interest. They don’t even represent those they say they speak for. It’s the worst sort of betrayal I can possibly imagine.

And most Americans are just like you Matt; just exactly like you. We want to go about our lives in safety, deciding what we’re going to do for ourselves without interference from anyone.

Some of those who don’t think much of you because of your comment quality are known to me to be anything but “nutters”. Much of their disdain has nothing to do with anything but the intellectual depth of the things you sometimes say. I’ve learned, like Jo, that there’s more to MattB than he lets show. Perhaps politically we would not agree. But we’ll never know where we’d agree or disagree because there’s no opportunity to get into any real discussion.

Seriously, you’d be welcome in the States any time. If you ever come, let me know and maybe we can get together over a good dinner (I hardly drink anything anymore or I’d offer a good beer or two — or three…).

Dunno what you Ozzies are moaning about.
Yup, you’ve got a load of useless ****wits running (and ruining) your country but so have we in the UK (and in the US and the EU and in …[insert western democracy of choice])
But you guys and girls are Ozzies so, eventually, you will get off your backsides and sort things out.
True, a miserable minority of tofu-knitting, vegan hand-wringers have wriggled their way to power by incestuously ‘leaning’ on their useless sisters in politics and media but all that proves is that sh*t still floats.
It may take a wee bit of an effort to flush the problem away but I’ve every confidence that it’ll be you lot what does it!
If you have to get together to form the KTBH (Keep The B*..*s Honest) party then do it – if you can’t get more votes than anaemic human-haters I’ll eat my hat.
Australia – we need you.

We are down and injured and a little bewildered and discouraged but, we hope, still have enough energy left to see off thieving politicians.

The start of this “disease” was the Supercharged – Enhanced – Social – Security payments that were invented by politicians in the early 1970′s.

What a wonderful way to get votes; until as in Europe and Greece, there are more on the dole than actually working.

The “disease” is the theft of our trust and belief in an equitable system of government.

The “disease” is the running of our country both by and for the Union elite.

The “disease” is the acquiescence of “Government” to unethical requests by Big Business to look the other way for industry approvals that will impact badly on environment or citizens who deserve protection.

Also tack on share market front running by the same mob who gave us the GFC; The Great Fuster Cluck which stole our retirements and 20 years of savings.

The disease is the “Compassion Industry” which effectively dumps guilt on people to help them ignore the fact that they are in greater pain than the beneficiaries of the big “C” being distributed by their “leaders”.

Is there a vaccine good enough or a needle big enough to fix this Disease?

Is there a vaccine good enough or a needle big enough to fix this Disease?

I think you know the answer to that question. You’re possibly afraid to admit what it is, I don’t know. But the disease you describe is just exactly what I described at #16. And you know where that disease lies and what needs to be done about it. I hope we all survive it.

surely SMH should be carrying Ove Hoegh-Gulberg’s horror at the following, rather than this benign AAP piece which – like the rest of the MSM – reports they are “unarmed” bombs?

20 July: SMH: AAP: Bombs dropped on reef ‘minimal risk’: ADF
Four unarmed bombs dropped on the Great Barrier Reef by US war planes pose “minimal risk” to the environment, the Australian Defence Force (ADF) says…
The four bombs posed “minimal risk or threat to the public, the marine environment or civilian shipping transiting the reef area”, an ADF spokesman told AAP.
“Defence is working closely with the US military, the Australian government and environmental organisations to ensure there is no danger to the public or the environment now or in the future.”
The two AV-8B Harrier jets intended to drop the bombs on a range on Townshend Island but the range was not clear, the US news agency NBC reported…
Each jet dropped two 225kg unexploded bombs in about 60m of water inside the marine park.
A planned salvage operation is expected to recover the bombs and an investigation continues into the incident.
The jets were part of training exercise Talisman Saber, involving 28,000 soldiers, sailors and air personnel from the ADF and US military…http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/bombs-dropped-on-reef-minimal-risk-adf-20130720-2qb44.html

such bombs certainly used to be “live”. if they were “unarmed”, why all the claims about potential damage, etc?

(pdf) Shoalwater Bay Military Training Area – Resource Assessment Vol 2
(Page 21) These areas are subject to shelling, bombing and other live fire which are likely to detract considerably from the wilderness values of the area.
Townshend Island was omitted from the Commission’s wilderness classification but in its submission the Australian Heritage Commission noted that the island is likely to have moderate wilderness value… In fact this island has a substantial population of feral goats and is used as a target area by both the RAAF and the RAN…http://adl.brs.gov.au/data/warehouse/pe_abarebrs99000290/shoalwater_bay_military_training_area_res_assess_vol_2.pdf

“Letting non-professionals get involved in the power grid is like giving the keys to the family car and a bottle of whiskey to a 14 year old boy and his pals. If the renewables were viable, we’d adopt them by the train-load and build them so fast your head would spin.”

So what if the scam is even larger than we think. What are the chances that the energy generated by wind turbines and to a lesser extent solar power is just dumped because it is just too destabilizing for the grid to handle? What percentage do you think gets dumped? 10% 50 90%? Has anyone ever bothered to look and see what amount is actually used?

The Germans have been begging the Czechs not to do it. (Poland is in a similar situation) Intermittent power generated by wind is sent through the networks to the heavy electrical consumers in southern Germany. As the East German grid is woefully under-capacity, even a decade after E.On said that Germany needed about 6000km of new HT grid just for wind power, that hasn’t happened and the electricity is going through Poland and Czech Republic; to be sucked off the grid again at the border, with no benefit to either of the “conductors”.

One of their proposed measures is to shift the phase a little (more) at the German-Polish or German-Czech border so any electricity that enters, would have to be (expensively) phase-corrected if re-imported into Germany to match the phase to the domestic supply. It’s expensive because the peak power transmitted is potentially is several gigawatts. A lot of amps; even at 1200kV.

.
I can’t answer Gai’s question definitively (better left to Tony who has all the figures), but I foresee a situation similar to the German one you describe, Bernd, developing in SA, in the not too distant future.

The anode recovery units at Olympic Dam are capable of sucking up 30% of the entire SA electrical supply, and the SA government has a contractual obligation to supply it, I would imagine with massive financial penalties if they fail to do so, given the damage failure of supply would cause.

Tony has previously published figures on SA drawing very expensive power from Victoria, which, in turn, has been topping up from Tasmania. That little arrangement has apparently ended with the closure of a gas-fired plant in TAS.

So, come next summer, on a particularly hot day, I can see the SA government having to decide between its electoral responsibility to the people of SA, or its financial obligation to Olympic Dam. SA could well become the first industrialised state in the entire Commonwealth of Nations, to experience completely electricity-free days. Could be interesting.

So, come next summer, on a particularly hot day, I can see the SA government having to decide between its electoral responsibility to the people of SA, or its financial obligation to Olympic Dam. SA could well become the first industrialised state in the entire Commonwealth of Nations, to experience completely electricity-free days.

And when that happens, it really will become interesting, or more importantly, horrifying.

The Northern Power Plant (brown coal fired) is positively ancient, hence prone to not running at its absolute best. If both units, or even one of them, fail, and it’s a particularly hot and still day, then power supply becomes problematic.

A typical hot Summer’s day Peak Power in S.A. comes in at around 2800MW, and that would last for around 6 hours or so.

One such day was Jan 04 2013. During that Peak, wind crashed to average only 250MW, and both units were running at Northern (500MW), so S.A. still needed almost 2000MW, some of it from Victoria, the rest from virtually every other plant in S.A.

Both units at the ancient Northern plant go down, and now with an ETS in place, Victorian plants are capped, hence virtually all their power going into what would essentially be a hot Victorian day as well.

Every plant in S.A. running still would not make up that shortfall.

Loadshedding would start outside Adelaide, across the remainder of the State, then with grid areas with the highest concentration of Residential consumers, always the first to go, in an effort to keep commerce and industry (and Adelaide) open. (No electricity means no work)

If Commerce goes down, imagine Coles and Woolies. All their goods in cold storage and coolers would have to go. Imagine the lawsuits following that.

The consequences are frightening to countenance.

It all comes back to State Governments (as Feds scramble not to have the blame laid at their door) not constructing power plants that CAN ACTUALLY supply their power all the time.

It would only take ONE day.

Then watch the fundament fall out of the Wind Industry as people wake up to the fact that after all they have been told, wind cannot deliver ON DEMAND. Then watch the outcry from all those rooftop solar panel owners, blacked out when the power goes off.

The grid is the best friend of Wind Power and all versions of solar power. Because those other traditional plants that supply all the time are connected to the grid, people just naturally think that there is always going to be power coming out of the hole in the wall.

After all, wind, solar and rooftop panels are just power plants that supply electrical power.

But we’ve pointed all this out for over twenty years with no recognition of the point. Perhaps an actual event is what is needed

I remember a power loss in Sydney CBD about 8 years ago (some fault in a sub-station). The ABC, who lost power in some critical area, went hysterically ballistic because, somehow, they actually believed that they had been deliberately targeted. Those of us involved in supplying power could only wish:)

Tony, I’m confused. Yesterday I was speaking to someone who used to live at Port Augusta and I was told that there are three power stations there, Northern A, Northern B and Playford. Apparently Playford is only about 20 years old, although I reckon 30 years would be more like it. Did the government close down all of them at the end of last summer, or is Playford still running?

Whenever something at the checkout counter goes wrong the conversation invariably becomes “it’s a great system when it works”.

People will be saying a lot more than that when the “big blackout” arrives here in SA and I imagine one of the demographic groups most upset will be teenagers.

I don’t know how much is “dumped”, but in Washington State, wind is paid to shutdown so cheaper hydro can be used. It happens every spring, it seems. There really is no good way to find these things out. I have read that China doesn’t even hook up many of its wind plants to the grid due to instability. This is one of the coolest things about electricity–it’s invisible. No one knows where it comes from or where it goes. And no one asks as long as the lights stay on. Transmission lines for wind are often buried and there is no way to know if a spinning turbine is actually making electricity. All the magic of an invisible commodity.

Ian, the jury followed the law of that jurisdiction and found Zimmerman not guilty of the crimes with which he was charged. I don’t like the idea that he killed the kid, but I have no time for idiots, anarchists (including POTUS and other pols) and religious zealots inciting others to riot and/or kill the guy. Attack the gun culture, attack the laws, but don’t attack the person who was acquitted. I don’t want YOU passing a death sentence on ME or anyone, especially if you aren’t on the jury. Wouldn’t your ire be better directed toward the conspiracists who continue to foist climate fears upon us, our lives and our well-being?

As predicted here yesterday, the Opposition is now crab-walking away from “welcoming” PM Kevin Rudd’s PNG plan now the detail, or lack of it, is becoming apparent.
“This man’s naked opportunism and stupidity is breathtaking and I’m only here until the election is called and them I’m off”, said a member of the PM’s staff who was formerly with Julia Gillard.

Oh for god’s sake Dennis don’t be thick. This was about the style not the substance. You copied the ENTIRE text of an 800 word blog post instead of just the relevant part, and posted it TWICE in a row. That’s no different to spam.
I told you exactly why I objected to it, no more, no less. Now you act like I objected to the substance of the message when I never said such a thing, so whose showing prejudice now?

You had already told us twice of Pickering’s allegation that the cattle deal and immigrant deal were announced on the same day because they were a swap, and I said nothing about that, made no objection to this information, and if he or you want to join those two dots together, go ahead! But keep your persecution complex to yourself.

As at 0520GMT, New Zealand has had 30 noticeable earthquakes in the last 24 Hours, mostly centred around Seddon, at the North East of the South Island. The largest (as I type this, was recorded at 0509GMT as 6.5 on the Richter scale, with an aftershock measuring 5.2, at 0513GMT.

It has been quite a shaky day , even by Godzone standards. Luckily my wine glass was only half full when the Hunterville 4.4 stuck at 5.13p.m.
I might think about all the old brick chimneys about the farm. Then again- nah.

Whats interesting about this latest episode is the location of the epicenters. Right on the boundary of the major plates at the crux point where neither are subducting. We could have interesting times ahead (again). That subterranean roar of a major earthquake is a sound you never forget. Makes you realize what inconsequential blips we humans really are. farmerbraun, reassess your chimneys, they were the first to go here in Christchurch.

Gone are all the old buildings — the Cathedral, and the Arts Centre (what was the old University), and all of the old warehouses and shops — to be replaced by modern architecture that will not have the same feel of time.

They are also rebuilding in the same place, which is essentially on sand and gravel, a substrate which liquified in the 2011 ‘quake. I am not a geologist (although one of my partners is) so the collective opinion in our office, is that it will go again, eventually. It comes down to your definition of “long term”.

The Australian Academy of Science surveyed more than 1,500 people, asking them basic scientific questions.
It found nearly 30 per cent did not know if humans lived at the same time as dinosaurs, and that 41 per cent did not know it took the Earth a year to travel around the sun. … Back in 2010 when people aged between 18 and 24 were asked the sun orbiting question, 73 per cent got it right. But the most recent survey found that statistic had fallen to 62 per cent.

That’s deplorable! No, I’m not talking about people being unaware of the meaning of “orbital period”, though ignorance of this observable fact is somewhat unsettling. What’s deplorable is that the AAS would rate people’s knowledge of Science by counting how many facts they can recall.
This looks like yet another attempt by the establishment to trash the Enlightenment and recast Science as a religion in which one can prove oneself worthy by how many lines of scripture one can recount verbatim.

Professor Field suggested the decline was most probably from an increased reliance on technology to provide the answers quickly.

Frankly, professor, we DO have computers and relational databases to do that for us, we’re going to use them.

The essence of Science is the scientific method, NOT the body of knowledge that resulted from it!

If they wanted to conduct an authentic survey they would basically need to sit people down to a 2 hour exam with “applications” type questions of different kinds:
A) Describe the modern scientific method in a flowchart.
B) Describe some examples of science where long-held theories were overturned.
C) Determine which of several arguments contains a logical fallacy and name which type.
D) Basic mathematics, a handful of questions on each of: Linear algebra and vectors, Euclidean geometry, integral and differential calculus.
E) Fixed scenario, fixed set of observations, name which of several hypotheses could be true.
F) Fixed scenario, fixed hypotheses, name what observations should occur according to each hypothesis
G) Fixed hypothesis, fixed target outcomes, describe scenarios in which an experiment could be run to test the hypothesis.

Professor Field believes society cannot underestimate the importance of science.
“Even if it’s as much looking under the bonnet of your car and understanding what superficially some of the bits do, or whether it is contributing to the debate that we are having around climate change or drugs in sport – all of these issues require a degree of scientific literacy simply to participate in the debate,” he said.

Oh really professor? I thought the debate was over and the science was settled. Bring it on!

When the question is asked for the exam, one should always give the correct classic answer. The switcheroony only happens at execution time when you’re expected to apply the method to a politicised subject. Presumably the willingness to be deceitful for The Cause gets extra Brownshirt points.

Ian H. – Stop. Your emotion seems to be driven by a need for revenge, not “justice”. Try placing yourself in the position of having been the beneficiary of an unpopular verdict. Jury selection was done according to the law. What does “white women” have to do with that? You’ve already been labeled as a hypocrite, I’ll happily add “racist” to that, based on your own words. In fact, had you been on trial, or on the stand, or on the panel, I suspect you’d be judged rather harshly – much more biased than Mr. Zimmerman. GFYS.

I’m not familiar with Australian politics, but I would have thought that it is in Rudd’s interest to have an election after the G20, as he can presumably garner a boost to his image by strutting his stuff on TV amongst the World leaders.

Dennis,
your contribution (http://joannenova.com.au/2013/07/weekend-unthreaded-15/#comment-1298517) at Item 24.1.1.2 above, really needs to be acknowledged.
Pinching an entire article from Pickering Post, and posting it without attribution in a manner that shows it as if it were your own comments, is called plaigarism.
You are called on this – please acknowledge.

A severe earthquake with a magnitude of 6.2 has erupted in an area 20 kilometers east of Seddon.

Seddon is a suburb 7 km west of Melbourne, Australia, with a population of about 4,851 people. It is located in the state of Victoria on the southeast tip of Australia. The shock effects of the quake have been felt as far away as Napier, in Western Australia, 3,302 kilometers (2,066 miles) from Melbourne. This suggests that the path of the quake is along the southern part of Australia.

The intensity of earthquakes is measured by the moment magnitude scale (MMS). Events with magnitudes greater than 4.5 are strong enough to be recorded by a seismograph anywhere in the world.

The death toll for earthquakes with a magnitude of 6.0 to 6.9 can reach 25,000 people. A large number of buildings in populated areas can be destroyed. The damage can be experienced far from the epicenter. (Wikipedia)

The depth of the quake near Seddon, as of 5:09 p.m., was 19km, which is over 11 miles deep.

Earthquakes can occur up to 700 kilometers below the surface.

There is an average of one earthquake per year in Australia with a magnitude of 5 or greater and a depth of 0 to 70 km. (USGS)

Number of words in jaymam’s copypasta above: 221.
Number of words in Dennis’ evicted copypasta: 1600 (counting both copies).
A ratio of 7.2 and more than an order of magnitude difference.
Sorry, just passively aggressively making a point.

22 July: ABC: Authority says unarmed bombs dropped on Great Barrier Reef ‘a low risk incident’
The Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority (GBRMPA) says four bombs being dropped on the Great Barrier Reef off Queensland has been deemed as a ‘low risk’ incident…
Authority spokesman Bruce Elliot says it will work with the ADF to locate the bombs and have them recovered.
“Probably mostly done by Defence in terms of locating the rounds – exactly where they are and then getting someone in there to get them out,” he said…http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-22/unarmed-bombs-dropped-on-reef-a-low-risk-incident/4834280

Australia’s averaged temperature data were impacted on by climate shifts in the 1950’s, 1970’s 2002 and 2010. After deducting the impact of those natural events, no residual warming trend was evident that could be related to atmospheric CO2 levels.

Australia’s, ‘hot decade’ (2000-2010) was used to relentlessly market global warming by Australia’s Climate Commission; the Bureau of Meteorology; green groups and politicians in order to stir a sense of catastrophe and climate-fear. However, the fear was unfounded; the drought and associated high temperatures were a temporary aberration caused by El Niño cycles, not global warming.

The 2010 down-step exposed much of that decade’s climate-grooming as false and deceptive. Deceit continues under the guise of “climate change”. There is no evidence at this time that climate change and CO2 concentration in the atmosphere are related.

The outcome of Australia’s looming election will make no difference to the climate, or to the likelihood or impact of future climate changes. Ditching the carbon tax together with ‘direct action’ would save the Nation’s taxpayers many billions of AUD$ which would be better spent on Nation-building and improving access to services.

I was delayed at the disaster called the Brisbane airport last week. Without doubt the most dysfunctional airport in the country. They really needed a parallel runaway 10 years ago. Who was it that won their federal parliamentary seat based on a promise to veto a parallel runaway – Kevin Rudd. Brisbane’s airport is no lesser disaster than Pink Batts or School Halls but because it’s not perceived as a national issue (it is, it causes delays at all the other airports), it gets only local media attention.

Perth is bad also. Needs parallel runway…. however the rocket scientists built warehouses on the land. Sydney is an ongoing disaster. Melbourne is OK and so is Adelaide(because hardly anyone goes there). Lots of air traffic control delays in Australia. Think of the extra carbon footprint!
Could be fixed by 1) hiring Americans 2) don’t let them have a union.

I flew to Coolangatta Airport last month and a great little airport it is, it’s actually placed on both sides of the QLD & NSW border.
Also talking to people near Brisbane said they fly Coolangatta because Brisbane is such a pain in the a%$@.

(5 pages)20 July: NYT: DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI: A Shuffle of Aluminum, but to Banks, Pure Gold
Gretchen Morgenson contributed reporting from New York. Alain Delaqueriere contributed research from New York
The story of how this works begins in 27 industrial warehouses in the Detroit area where a Goldman (Sachs)subsidiary stores customers’ aluminum. Each day, a fleet of trucks shuffles 1,500-pound bars of the metal among the warehouses. Two or three times a day, sometimes more, the drivers make the same circuits. They load in one warehouse. They unload in another. And then they do it again.
This industrial dance has been choreographed by Goldman to exploit pricing regulations set up by an overseas commodities exchange, an investigation by The New York Times has found. The back-and-forth lengthens the storage time. And that adds many millions a year to the coffers of Goldman, which owns the warehouses and charges rent to store the metal. It also increases prices paid by manufacturers and consumers across the country…
Only a tenth of a cent or so of an aluminum can’s purchase price can be traced back to the strategy. But multiply that amount by the 90 billion aluminum cans consumed in the United States each year — and add the tons of aluminum used in things like cars, electronics and house siding — and the efforts by Goldman and other financial players has cost American consumers more than $5 billion over the last three years, say former industry executives, analysts and consultants.
The inflated aluminum pricing is just one way that Wall Street is flexing its financial muscle and capitalizing on loosened federal regulations to sway a variety of commodities markets, according to financial records, regulatory documents and interviews with people involved in the activities.
The maneuvering in markets for oil, wheat, cotton, coffee and more have brought billions in profits to investment banks like Goldman, JPMorgan Chase and Morgan Stanley, while forcing consumers to pay more every time they fill up a gas tank, flick on a light switch, open a beer or buy a cellphone. In the last year, federal authorities have accused three banks, including JPMorgan, of rigging electricity prices, and last week JPMorgan was trying to reach a settlement that could cost it $500 million…http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/21/business/a-shuffle-of-aluminum-but-to-banks-pure-gold.html?hp&_r=2&amp;

“The theory that failed
It takes only one experiment to disprove a theory”.

The problem is the “Greenhouse Effect” ‘theory’.

It has never been shown to exist.

Real, empirically well tried and tested up to date modern physics as still traditionally taught shows this “GHE” is faked physics.

The -18°C comes from real physics and is the temperature of the Earth without any atmosphere at all, not the temperature without the AGWs “greenhouse gases” – compare with the Moon -23°C.

The real atmosphere of mainly nitrogen and oxygen, but minus water, think deserts, is 67°C.

It is the heavy real gas atmosphere of nitrogen and oxygen which is the real thermal blanket around the Earth preventing the extremes into cold and heat of the Moon.

The trace gas carbon dioxide is practically all hole in the atmosphere.

The AGW Greenhouse Effect has taken out the Water Cycle completely.

Real greenhouses both warm and cool.

Nitrogen and oxygen both warm and cool the Earth from the extreme temperatures as reached on the Moon without an atmosphere. Through the weight of its mass under gravity and by expanding or condensing when heated or cooled, in heat transfer by convection and convection currents, winds.

The GHE does not have rain in its Carbon Cycle.

This Greenhouse Effect is an illusion, there is no way your greenhouse gases raise the Earth’s temp 33°C.